A leading German women’s magazine praised for dropping skinny models in favour of 'real people' has reversed its decision after two years - because sales dropped as the lbs piled on. This month's e-edition of Brigitte features slimline pro-models again.

This is code for the 'real people' experiment being a failure. During the two year trial over 1,000 women aged between 18 and 68 had been used in fashion and beauty features - 'to give beauty its naturalness back and show that attractiveness has many faces'.

Think about this. The German magazine, Brigitte, sells almost exclusively to women. The publishers were no doubt assured that eliminating those offensively slender models from the magazine's pages would increase sales, and probably found themselves subject the usual point-and-shame pressure of the sort that women have directed at a wide range of organizations and institutions for the last forty years as well.

The publishers almost surely believed that by giving women what they were actively demanding, they would benefit from in the form of more positive press and increased sales. They got the more positive press they were expecting, as the media around the world covered their action favorably. But they didn't get the sales; the best-selling magazine that once sold 700,000 copies per month saw that its subscriptions "dropped by nearly 22 per cent while 35 per cent fewer copies were sold in shops".

The magazine would have been in much better shape had its publishers kept this basic principle in mind: women cannot tell you what they want because they do not consciously know what they want. Their desires can only be ascertained by their actions, not their assertions.

The magazine would have been in much better shape had its publishers kept this basic principle in mind: women cannot tell you what they want because they do not consciously know what they want. Their desires can only be ascertained by their actions, not their assertions.

What? Women are liars? Who knew?

On a less sarcastic note, the assertion that a woman's desires can only be ascertained by her actions does apply to men as well. Just look at Barack Obama or Mitt Romney for further proof of that.

I'm not sure that one has to go all the way to Keoni Galt's assertion that one who has learned game must become at least a bit misogynist. I'm starting to think it isn't like that at all. You just have to accept the fact that women are fundamentally different from men, real good at some things, not very good at others. Working in the rational mode is one thing that, as a group, they are not good at. There are exceptions, and across a large population this means there are even large groups of women who can operate very rationally and dispassionately - just that the center mass of women is nowhere near the center mass of men on this.

It's emotionally painful to try to square all this. Game tells you how it works. It doesn't make the working of things feel satisfactory or nice or make you feel hopeful though - it's a return to the reminder that nature is sharp of tooth and claw, and underneath the nice suits, we're basically hairless monkeys, soul or not. The struggle to make things nicer is at the core of a lot of our struggles, and a lot of our social policy debacles are at their core a rejection of older learned habits, civilization, and a return to "authentic" or "liberating" natural behavior.

The great error of feminism is that it's doubly wrong. The rejection of conventional socio-sexual mores in a supposed attempt to rise above nature (e.g. "biology is not destiny") has only served to completely unleash human biology in the sexual, political and economic marketplaces. Those mores were an attempt to restrain women's - and men's - more animalistic nature. That came with tradeoffs, but it made a good chunk of life nicer and more satisfying. In this it mirrors the failure of Frankfurt School marxism and the radicalism underlying the modern left. While it may be more authentic and honest and true to our monkey-man roots to take a dump in the corner of the room, using a toilet, shutting the door, and turning on the fan avoids choking everybody in the room out and eliminates the transmission of disease. The classic ethical question asks that if you had a chance to go back in time and strangle the infant Hitler, whether you would; but the real question should involve the infant Rousseau, the popularizer of the notion of the noble savage. The answer shouldn't be a quandary either, the right answer is "a thousand times, yes!" and it's the same answer for a good several dozen of these pied pipers who have intentionally or naively destroyed so much of western civilization's progress.

Sorry about the rant but in this political season where the case is between a guy who wants to fundamentally overturn the social system (see the "Life of Julia" ad campaign targeting single moms) and a guy who wants to preserve it in half melted form, it's worth talking about the bigger philosophical issues at stake, of which feminism and the lies that necessarily prop it up are merely an outer flourish.

Some years ago, I calculated the number of days I spent "visiting" kids & grandkids. Most of these days were wasted, as there was very little contact anyway (they all worked) So we'd spend two weekends (plus the whole week) hanging out. I figured at least 2 months of my life wasted...

You just have to accept the fact that women are fundamentally different from men, real good at some things, not very good at others. Working in the rational mode is one thing that, as a group, they are not good at.

Like, say, telling the truth, even to themselves. It'd really help if we stop making excuses for them that would never fly if applied to a man.

Note the pictures used in the article, none of them from the magazine itself. There are some cherry-picked "OMG hawt girlz" pictures and one admitted "stock picture" of a cadaverous "supermodel" (carefully omitting the truth that the "heroin chic" look was never popular with anyone but homosexuals).

Now, how am I supposed to arrive at a rational conclusion based on the lack of evidence? This is nothing more than some feminist having a fit of hysteria because it didn't work the way she expected.

So I did some looking, and I found one--ONE!--pic from the "real women" era. Have a look here.

I'm sorry, by the way.

The thing is, who would buy a beauty- and sex-secrets magazine with that face on it?

I'm not sure that one has to go all the way to Keoni Galt's assertion that one who has learned game must become at least a bit misogynist. I'm starting to think it isn't like that at all. You just have to accept the fact that women are fundamentally different from men, real good at some things, not very good at others.

I used to think of myself as somewhat misogynistic. Even though I'm a woman and subject to all of the feminine things discussed on this blog, I've had a difficult time dealing with these things in other women. Strangely (or not so strangely), Game has helped me in an indirect way to deal with other women and has improved the few female friendships I have. I've pretty much signed on to your position, Joe, that you don't have to be a misogynist if you use Game. It's been difficult, but I've come to accept all of the things I considered flawed about my own sex as not worse, not better, just different.

I could be entirely wrong here, but my interpretation of KG's statement is that there is some resentment and anger over the fact that women aren't like men. If true, that shows how insidious and pervasive feminism is in promoting the idea that women are just like men (only better). Women who take their version of the Red Pill have to let go of the same idea. There are women who honestly think that being harsh and demanding means they're just being direct and powerful (i.e. masculine), and that's how to deal with a man. They don't look at their failures as a failure of their philosophy, but as a failure of men to live up to the philosophical expectation. The whole idea of feminine wiles -- basically Girl Game -- seems like a pathetic, dishonest manipulation to them and many women thus recoil at it. The ones who actually take the Red Pill and realize that men are fundamentally different than themselves go through the same evolution in thinking as their male counterparts. At first there is confusion, anger, and resentment. Then, as these women see their relationships with men improve by employing the principles learned, there are sometimes feelings of contempt now that they know how to manipulate men with their newfound powers. (I, personally, didn't experience this, but I've observed it in other women.) Finally they find that the difference is not only tolerable, but even quite enjoyable and something worth appreciating.

@ Cryan Ryan: I had an ever-so-slightly similar experience recently with an older female relative who came to visit last month. She usually has a big list of things she thinks she wants to do while she's here, so we do them all, and then at the end of the trip we're both tired, annoyed, and relieved the visit is over. This time I ignored the list in favor of the things I've observed she likes to do. I didn't outright say no to anything on her list, I just quietly enforced my new itinerary. We ended up having a grand time, and a month later she's still gushing about how this was the best vacation she's ever had.

It is sadly amusing (I'm sad because I find it amusing) how many men are still so butt hurt that women aren't the creatures they were told women were while growing up.

You're angry at the wrong person. Be angry at the mentor men in your past. They are the ones who failed you, by not teaching you the truth.

Why are you butt hurt about women not telling you the truth? Are you still so loyal to your momma, have her on such a high pedestal, that you can't accept the fact that she told you sweet little lies? You have to accept that she did the very best that she could.

I think the mommas boy thing is complicated. By removing fathers from the.home, more and more boys were raised never seeing how a wife treats a husband in the home. They are more likely to.see how she treats a boyfriend.

It wasn't easy having a gamma father who helped her teach me to be a gamma, but it didn't go unnoticed how the same woman that treated me like I was worth more than the world treated her husband like he was worth less than dog dung.

It tells me that everyone likes to look at hot women. Ordinary women (fat, old, ugly) are not appealing especially for a magazine. Take for an example of family magazines that are more likely to feature good looking mothers, but they are a few points higher than the average Mom and they usually have articles about actress mothers. Angelina Jolie is no average mother.

Women only.insult beautiful women because they envy them. They'll spend more looking at rich beautiful women, not because they.relate to.them like they do (so-called) "real women," but.because they.fantasize about being them.

The strange punctuation is me fat fingering it on my new phone's keyboard and having trouble figuring out the cursor movement to correct it then growing impatient. The periods are by the space bar and they are small and tough to see in keyboard mode.

Sorry about that. I didn't think anyone would pay attention. I'll watch it more closely now.

No, don't worry about it, Trust. I was looking at my laptop keyboard and trying to figure out how that would happen. That it comes from typing on a phone keyboard makes sense. Not a big deal, I was just curious.

"You're angry at the wrong person. Be angry at the mentor men in your past. They are the ones who failed you, by not teaching you the truth."

The prime source of the bullshit misinformation is women who are close to you while you're growing up -- you mothers, sisters, aunts. They love you and have the best intentions, but their advice sucks.

This is what will happen with the "war on video games" women complain of the sexism and violence the game companies will make them more female friendly thinking they will capture this market and then they will lose a big chunk of sales. The worst part? They will probably be told that they changed it all wrong and in a sexist way and try again till some of them go bankrupt, same old, same old...

Wait - if this was true, why hasn't Dove received a drop-off of sales in their products? Don't they promote average women (and compared to the plus size models of the Germans, American plus size models are REALLY fat). I wish this was the case because it would be a major refutation of feminism, yet I haven't seen this in American companies.

The business angle is this: "women want to see real women" is a value women want to hold. They see themselves as accepting, inspired by other women, and down to earth.

They aren't actually that, of course, so a good businessman uses material that makes a woman feel as if she saw real women, as if she supports the real woman value, while giving her a picture of herself that nonetheless elevates her as special.

Thus, the good businessman takes a fat singer (Jennifer Hudson) and puts her on stage in front of a judgemental monster (Simon Cowell) and every woman can screech at him for telling the truth, feel righteous, noble and real while then buying her line of weightwatchers products, and her inspirational ability to lose 50 pounds for 3 million dollars.

But you are an idiot if you actually put real women in women's magazines and expect circulation to go up.

What they should have done is put real women in completely degrading poses, and caused an uproar of righteous indignation in defense of "real women" and the magazine industry "just not getting it" if they wanted to play that theme to the bank.

"Their desires can only be ascertained by their actions, not their assertions."

That is a good rule of thumb, but not absolute. Women are 1/2 female, 1/4 just human, and 1/4 purely individual. Some areas she can be trusted to know what she wants, but you would have to know her to know which areas. And you'd need to know her for a long time. So if you don't know the woman, check. If you do know her, let her have the reigns when she is in her area, otherwise... guide. Or let her crash and burn, just for fun. Depending on your mood and proclivities.

Women prefer to buy magazines with images of highly attractive women for the following reason. They project their self onto those pictures and images and this gives them a brain chemistry pay off, they then associate the clothes etc with them being these women and the pay off is doubled. Course this has to be continually buffered by articles in the magazine saying that all sorts of women are beautiful. Problem is they don't really want to look like those "all sorts of women" type.

This is analogous to male porn stars. In the early days of porn they tended to put out average Joes as it was thought that having big dicked studs would put men off, they thought men would prefer to see average Joe hitting the sexual jackpot.

Modern porn effectively is men projecting their own selves onto the big dicked porn stars, to get an illusory sensation that they are that guy. Being the average Joe doesn't give the same pay off.

I'd argue while both give an immediate pay off, they can often lead to mal-adaptive thought patterns. One can potentially develop an unhealthy obsession with looking like the cover model, or an unhealthy obsession with needing to be an alpha stud in the bedroom.

Thats not to say that either is not a preferable way to be its just that there are other ways of seeing yourself and all its flaws that will lead to a more contented life. Continually comparing yourself to the genetically superior does not a happy bunny make!